nationfandomcom-20200223-history
File talk:Unmanliness.jpg
The sugarplum fairy! No really, I'm not very manly either since I prefer thee over alcohol, dislike sports, lack an athletic form but don't have a beer belly either, don't think a woman with a big ass is hot, etc. Why should I like what society dictates me to like? To get laid more often? To have people like me better? I'm not saying those aren't nice advantages - they obviously are - but I believe we can do better than that. I think my mindset makes for a better leader than the one of Arnold Schwarzenegger. 16:15, June 7, 2011 (UTC) :Schwarzenegger is a fool, he thinks with his dick. You know the saying "why go out for a burger if you've got a steak at home"? Guess he never heard it; he cheated on his beautiful and loyal wife with an ugly cleaning lady... I don't think cheating on your wife is manly in any way, in any way not admirable. Definetely don't see this walking heap of steroids as manly in any way. Still, a leader has to be brave, daring, to be succesful and respected. Traits often viewed as being manly. As Alexander the Great said: "I fear more an army of sheep led by a lion then I fear an army of lions led by a sheep". The Master's Voice 16:26, June 7, 2011 (UTC) :And leadership qualities aren't equally divided over males and females? I admit there is some genetic thing to it, but the real issue is that woman are groomed by society to not portray those qualities if they have them. Research showed that males don't like to be dominated by females, a trend which strengthens as the males have a higher societal position themselves. You are right to call it biology but I'm equally right calling it discrimination. We don't deny stupid(er) people education either, do we? 16:31, June 7, 2011 (UTC) ::I have absolutely no trouble with a woman leading a country. Not if she would show the qualities I just described, that is. Generally the leaders of powerful nations are men, strongly built with an abundance of machismo. Height can also be a factor; in US elections it has been discovered that in around 85% of cases the taller candidate ultimately wins the elections. Name me one democratic country in which the people elected a weakling of short stature and with a high-pitched voice to lead their country? Female leaders, too, tend to be rather butch. The Master's Voice 16:37, June 7, 2011 (UTC) :::The future Belgium PM might be a homosexual, but maybe Belgium isn't the best example. It is a real shame people are elected for an image, while governing qualities and good ideas have nothing to do with looking good or making media appearances. I guess that is why democracy killed socialism: people aren't educated enough to make a responsible choice. 05:30, June 8, 2011 (UTC) ::::Well, the voice of the people is what should be listened to. Be it wise or not, it is democracy. However democracy as we now know it is a travesty of the real democracy the Greek philosophers of the past had envisioned, as politicians are lying, dishonest, deceiving scumbags who literally screw the people every chance they've got. However, it is the image of someone that is often most important. You'll notice a good speaker is not someone who is the most eloquent or educated, he is simply the one who says what the people want to hear and does so in a voice and manner that is seen as imposing and interesting. For example, take a look at the EU: it is weak and devided and led by weak people. A man such as Rompuy may be extremely intelligent and capable, it's his appearance and voice that allows people to not take him seriously. If you look like a sheep, you'll never be a lion. Just out of curiousity: which gay Belgian politician do you think will make it to PM in your country? DiRupo or DeWever? The Master's Voice 08:05, June 8, 2011 (UTC) :(1) Herman Van Rompuy doesn't lead, the strongest states (Germany, France, UK) wanted to pick a weak figure because he wouldn't be able to make a stand against the national levels. Nationalist tendencies prevent a strong personality from being on the #1 spot. (2) De Wever doesn't want to become PM, because it doesn't fits the image he maintains. He wants to look like an underdog because that is the image that sells. 09:04, June 8, 2011 (UTC) ::(2) Which gay where you then refering to as possible Belgian PM? ::(1) I understand the feelings of these nationalist very well, being a nationalist myself I share many of their sympathies. However would you regard an intellectual weakling leader as superior to a strong man from the working class? After all, you are still a communist, are you not? The Master's Voice 09:08, June 8, 2011 (UTC) :::The gay PM was Di Rupo who is still the most likely candidate. Also, I believe the N-VA is 'nationalist' in the sense that they want to get rid of the socialist/progressive part of the country. Flanders is richer and more rightist/liberal, dropping the Walloons would enhance the changes of the moralist N-VA to promote their conservative and pessimist view on humanity. Also, I'm no ordinary communist. Society is a complex thing which needs to be studied by intelligent and capable people, I prefer a technocratic Europe over a democratic one because the people are not capable of making responsible choices yet. We need to create democrats before entering democracy just like we must make socialists before we can make socialism. 09:20, June 8, 2011 (UTC) ::::In what way would the people make "wrong choices", then? And would your idea of "educting them" eventually make them all into little red socialists? In what way are the people of Europe stupid? The Master's Voice 09:23, June 8, 2011 (UTC) :::::Consider social security and democracy in Europe: advocated initially only by socialist parties who believed it was a step towards socialism. After a few decades, processes of democratization and higher wealth lead to more rightist views. It did not bring solidarity - people are selfish and base their choices on greed and emotion. I want a society organized on principles like reason, common good, etc. Unless we work on a democratic and social(ist) culture we will never attain such a society, we will never be truly free. 09:34, June 8, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Being greedy is a choice people are free to make, so is being selfish. Who are you to tell them this is wrong. Emotions, also, belong to people. If we make decisions based on our emotions and these decisions are nationalistic and rightist rather then socialist and all about the "common good", as you claim, who are you to decide that this is wrong? And the common good could mean two things: the common good for humanity as a whole, for a continent or for one nation and it's people. The last category of "common good" is what I am all for. The Master's Voice 09:40, June 8, 2011 (UTC) :Selfishness is the causes people to think tax evasion is a good thing but free education is a right. People want to have personal profits and societal/common costs - that is not attainable in the long run and is the main deficiency of social security in Europe nowadays. We want to have it but don't want to pay it. The common good should be defined in terms of long run sustainability of societal structures and the attained level of common wealth and its fair redistribution. 09:49, June 8, 2011 (UTC) ::The common good is of no importance if it is not will of the people. What the people want is usally what is good for their own country and their own people - not neccesarily what is good for the world or what is good for all of humanity. The Master's Voice 09:55, June 8, 2011 (UTC) :::Marx already answered that: people bear a false consciousness leading them to pursue false needs. If that which is good for the people differs from what the people want, they are not ready for the solution but the first option remains the best one from a rational and neutral point of view. 09:58, June 8, 2011 (UTC) ::::Sometimes the people simply want something that is not good for all people, still, it might be just what the people in question require. When the people want to enter a war which they cannot win, a reasonable man might say they should not and intervene. However, the people wish for this war, so it will take place and they will lose it. Sometimes a man may have to protect his people, the way a father has to protect his children and a chicken her eggs. This is basically the same as with the LGBT-question. The way you want to govern the people is the way I want to raise my children, yet we hope for an entirely different outcome. The Master's Voice 10:07, June 8, 2011 (UTC) :::::Democracy is not a virtue in itself, the majority can and will be wrong. Democracy should be a tool to stimulate discussion, to avoid corruption and to redistribute power. It works good sometimes but can go terribly wrong if the people don't support a democratic and social framework. That is why democracy and pluralism can not be united, democracy is the dictature of the majority. 10:12, June 8, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Democracy is indeed the dictature of the majority, however then we would be speaking about democracy in it's purest form in which people directly influence the politicians they vote into office. Funny thing with politicians, though: they are human. They change opionions, they shift alliances, they lie, they cheat and they often fail. A true democracy would go trough referenda in which the people all vote for something. The system with multiple parties in chambers corrupts true democracy as proposals that a majority of the people (+51%) support mail still fail because politicians have their own personal agenda at work. The Master's Voice 10:16, June 8, 2011 (UTC)